Murrietaâs red light cameras are out of commission, and the city is gearing for a legal battle over them.

Signs reading âPHOTO ENFORCEDâ still hung at four intersections previously monitored by the cameras, though they were deactivated Friday.

All five of the cityâs cameras were left mounted despite being turned off, according to Cpt. Dennis Vrooman of the Murrieta Police Department.

âThey will not be removed due to litigation by ATS (American Traffic Solutions, the company providing the cameras to the city),â Vrooman said.

The cameras had to go dark as a result of the passage of Measure N, which Murrieta residents approved 57 to 43 percent in November. The measure passed an ordinance â" against most of the council membersâ wishes â" that will outlaw the cameras.

The council accepted the results Dec. 4, and the ordinance became law 10 days later.

The shutdown is a victory for an anti-camera activist who circulated a petition to get Measure N on the ballot.

âIâm happy theyâre turned off,â said Diana Serafin, who led the charge. âItâs a good Christmas present.â

The cameras went up at three intersections in 2006 at Murrieta Hot Springs and Whitewood roads, Murrieta Hot Springs and Margarita roads and at Clinton Keith Road and Nutmeg Street.

Murrieta police officials reported the number of broadside collisions declined after the cameras went up, though detractors pointed to an increase in rear-end collisions.

Before Novemberâs vote, a local resident, Steve Flynn, sued to block the measure. The suit won in Riverside County Superior Court but the appeals court overturned the decision.

After the measure passed, ATS sued the city, according to Jeff Murphy, Murrietaâs assistant city attorney.

The original writ of mandate was thrown out, but they filed again, and the city was served with it last week, Murphy said.

The cityâs response to the writ was still in the works, he said.

âOn this point, Iâm still working on a direction with the City Council,â he said.

The cameras will remain off during litigation, Murphy said.

Whether the city will take down the cameras â" and the accompanying signs â" will be up to the council.

âIt would be their discretionary call,â Murphy said.

Serafin criticized the city for leaving the now-false signs up.

âItâs kind of stupid, but maybe theyâre going to take them down, she said.

Join the conversation

Keep it civil and stay on topic. No profanity, vulgarity, racial slurs or personal attacks. People who harass others or joke about tragedies will be blocked. By posting your comment, you agree to allow Freedom Communications, Inc. the right to republish your name and comment in additional Freedom publications without any notification or payment.